Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/8] PPC: Add e5500 CPU target

[Scott Wood]

On 06/20/2012 05:59 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 21.06.2012, at 00:26, Scott Wood wrote:
> 
>> On 06/20/2012 03:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> +    /* XXX better abstract into Emb.xxx features */
>>> +    if (version == fsl_e5500) {
>>> +        spr_register(env, SPR_BOOKE_EPCR, "EPCR",
>>> +                     SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> +                     &spr_read_generic, &spr_write_generic,
>>> +                     0x00000000);
>>> +        spr_register(env, SPR_BOOKE_MAS7_MAS3, "MAS7_MAS3",
>>> +                     SPR_NOACCESS, SPR_NOACCESS,
>>> +                     &spr_read_mas73, &spr_write_mas73,
>>> +                     0x00000000);
>>> +        env->reset_msr = (1ULL < MSR_CM);
>>
>> That's a funny way of writing "env->reset_msr = 0". :-)
>>
>> Assuming you really meant "env->reset_msr = 1ULL << MSR_CM", why?  We
>> enter the kernel in 32-bit mode.  It resets in 32-bit mode as well, if
>> we ever implement that for e5500 QEMU.
> 
> Hrm. At least my self-compiled kernel did issue an "ld" instruction before 
> going into MSR_CM mode, hence I figured we need it.

You don't need MSR_CM to run 64-bit instructions.  It just affects
masking in certain places.

>>> +    }
>>>
>>> #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>>>     env->nb_tlb = 0;
>>> @@ -4576,6 +4655,14 @@ static void init_proc_e500 (CPUPPCState *env, int 
>>> version)
>>> #endif
>>>
>>>     init_excp_e200(env);
>>> +
>>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>>> +    /* We support 64bit wide IVPR on 64bit platforms */
>>> +    if (version == fsl_e5500) {
>>> +        env->ivpr_mask = (target_ulong)~0xFFFFULL;
>>> +    }
>>> +#endif
>>
>> So, I'm guessing you don't do this unconditionally because QEMU will
>> generate 64-bit code if compiled that way, regardless of the actual
>> target -- and you don't want stray garbage in the upper 32 bits being
>> written into IVPR.  But why isn't this an issue with all the other SPRs?
>> Why don't we have a problem with junk being written into the upper half
>> of MAS3, for example (there's MAS3_RPN_MASK, but it's not used)?
> 
> I was thinking of making it unconditional, but this way seemed
> cleaner to me, as it actually follows exactly what the spec says. Not
> sure what would happen if you have -1 in your 32-bit register value
> and you try to write that to IVPR otherwise. It'd probably break :).

It would only break because there doesn't seem to be any generic way of
treating 32-bit SPRs as 32-bit.  We should probably have a separate
spr_write_generic32().  For a register like IVPR we'd select 32 or
full-size at init time, based on the type of CPU we're modelling.  For
something like MAS3 we'd always use the 32-bit version.

-Scott